The death penalty is a punishment that has been in use by many countries and societies for centuries. This seemingly primitive style of punishment is still in use in the United States by many states, although it is not a punishment handed out lightly. Unfortunately, wrongful convictions do happen and if that person ends up on death row, they enter a race to prove their innocence. In the mid 1980’s DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) was introduced as a way to positively identify people and it made its first appearance in a forensic investigation in short order. DNA gave investigators, prosecutors, and defendants another tool to help prove guilt or innocence.
The identification was ruled too suggestive. I feel like eyewitness testimony is too unreliable for the simple reason that the identification is able to be so suggestive. Recently I have been doing a lot of research on wrongful execution, and there have been people wrongfully put to death due to eyewitness testimony. It is a miscarriage of justice for an innocent person to spend one day in jail, it is a tragedy for an innocent person to be put to death. One innocent person punished in any way for the crime of another is one too many.
Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in nearly 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing. While eyewitness testimony can be persuasive evidence before a judge or jury, 30 years of strong social science research has proven that eyewitness identification is often unreliable. Research shows that the human mind is not like a tape recorder; we neither record events exactly as we see them, nor recall them like a tape that has been rewound. Instead, witness memory is like any other evidence at a crime scene; it must be preserved carefully and retrieved methodically, or it can be contaminated When police use suggestive procedures to obtain an identification, that should per-se be a reason to exclude the identification. If such identifications are excluded, police will begin to use only reliable identification procedures.
This area of study is called forensic biotechnology, and uses a method called DNA fingerprinting. This method is based on the fact that each individual's DNA is highly unlikely to be identical to any other person's DNA (unless he or she has an identical twin).By examining traces of tissue, hair, tooth pulp, blood, or other body fluids left at the scene of a crime, a suspect can be linked to a crime location very accurately. Many states across our nation are now accepting DNA fingerprinting results as admissible evidence in criminal and civil trials. In explaining Mendel’s principles of segregation and independent assortment are a intriquate part of the puzzle as a biotechnologist. Independent assortment is a basic principle of genetics developed by a monk named Gregor Mendel in the 1860's.
The chain of custody, if done properly, is proof to the court that the evidence in front of them is the same evidence that was collected at the crime scene. “The tagging, labeling and marking of the evidence adds credibility and control to our ability to identifying the item. “ (Byrd) The policy will affect everyone involved in the case. If the chain of custody is broken the suspect may get away with the crime because the evidence had to be thrown out. It would give the law enforcement personnel a bad name or rap because he or she broke the policy.
When psychologists act as expert witnesses a number of issues are raised surrounding the admissibility of their evidence. Discuss these issues with reference to eyewitness testimony and domestic violence, then make queriess as to how these issues might be resolved. In order to prosecute alleged offences, evidence such as testimony from eyewitness, fingerprint, hair, DNA, etc. which should provided in court accurately. These evidences are only allowed in legal proceedings when they are considered to be relevant (i.e.
According to this view, if the state is allowed to kill, why is not this privilege extended to all citizens? Nevertheless, as valuable as this contention may be, what York fails to recognize is that everyone who is condemned to death has received a trial by jury and has been found guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt”--the same criteria applied in the judgment of all accused persons. Sentencing someone to death, therefore, is not an arbitrary decision. It is one that is passed by a government who has promised to protect everyone who abides by the rules and codes of a moral and decent society. How can we allow a small but ever-growing percentage of the population to continually hurt others because not enough fear is instilled in these individuals--their lives are not threatened, so
The judges do all the gathering of evidence and questioning of the witnesses before they decide to vote guilty or not. There are defense attorneys and prosecuting attorneys present at trial. Ultimately the trial is to prove ones innocence because they are automatically considered guilty in the Inquisitorial system. To us here in the United States it would be unfair to presume that someone is guilty right away. We try to give people the benefit of the doubt that they are innocent and it is the burden of the state to prove they are guilty.
The purpose of evidence in courts is to prove or disprove the evidence presented and should be solid enough to convince the jury of reasonable doubt, especially in a criminal trial. In civil cases, the fact is that the evidence is more factual than not and that circumstantial evidence varies upon the type of case that is being tried. Oral and Physical Evidence Physical evidence is one of the most common types of evidence found at a crime scene. Physical evidence consists of the actual physical objects found at the scene. This can range from large items such as damaged cars, broken glass, and smashed doors.
These types of cases happen frequently; in fact 1 in every 7 people who were executed is innocent. These types of mistakes happen because important cases are usually rushed and the lack of evidence that is crucial is not sufficient enough to reach a justice outcome. Cases like this show that capital punishments are sometimes just the result of an innocent person’s life. Not only does this result in taking away an innocent person life but it also affect the family of the person that got executed. In the novel the wife of